Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:05:10 -0500 From: Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com> To: Jason Hellenthal <jhell@dataix.net> Cc: Maninya M <maninya@gmail.com>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: OS support for fault tolerance Message-ID: <CAF6rxgmjK%2BApVof35h8u2Y793b709VZcF1oPL62zqbXn1_n1Kw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20120214170533.GA35819@DataIX.net> References: <CAC46K3mc=V=oBOQnvEp9iMTyNXKD1Ki_%2BD0Akm8PM7rdJwDF8g@mail.gmail.com> <4F3A9266.9050905@freebsd.org> <20120214170533.GA35819@DataIX.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Jason Hellenthal <jhell@dataix.net> wrote: > How about core redundancy ? effectively this would reduce the amount of > available cores in half in you spread a process to run on two cores at > the same time but with an option to adjust this per process etc... I > don't see it as unfeasable. There are a number of papers discussing core redundancy. They pretty much all work the same way: process the work on two different cores (or verify some subset of the work on the second core), and wait for both cores to return prior to the commit phase. One example: www.eecs.umich.edu/~taustin/papers/MICRO32-diva.pdf Another example: www.ee.duke.edu/~sorin/papers/ieeemicro08_argus.pdf These don't use existing cores on a multi-core chip, but instead use a "functional correctness" chip but I've seen designs that use the former as well. -- Eitan Adler
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAF6rxgmjK%2BApVof35h8u2Y793b709VZcF1oPL62zqbXn1_n1Kw>